“dispute resolution panel”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C2,746 judgments

The decision most relied on for dispute resolution panel is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on dispute resolution panel

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.

177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court

216

citing judgments

The Supreme Court has not reached a majority verdict on whether the time spent in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings under Section 144C should be included within the overall limitation period prescribed by Section 153(3). Consequently, the legal position on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT\n(Intl. Taxation)

153 Taxmann.com 162 · 2023 · High Court

169

citing judgments

The time consumed in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C must be subsumed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for the completion of assessment, meaning these timelines are not mutually exclusive.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel-2

127 Taxmann.com 332 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

A High Court decision is binding on subordinate authorities like the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer erred in not following a prior jurisdictional High Court ruling and a Madras High Court ruling.

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Ors.

361 ITR 531 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, not an appeal. The DRP's role is to act as a correcting mechanism, providing a second review of the proposed assessment order.

CIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.

77 Taxmann.com 326 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can withdraw a company from the list of comparables if it was inadvertently included and is not genuinely comparable.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals)

338 ITR 482 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The deletion of a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is upheld when relied upon by other judgments.

Judgments citing dispute resolution panel

Tata Aig General Insurance Comapany Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Shri NishantFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 15Section 153Section 2Section 32Section 92C

order which reads as under:- “19. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to briefly touch upon the scheme of reference to Dispute Resolution Panel contained in Sec. 144C of the Act. Prior to the introduction of Sec. 144C of the Act by the Finance (no.2) Act, 2009 with ... eligible assessee‟ prescribed therein. Sec. 144C of the Act contains 15 subsections and provides for a mechanism for dispute resolution, powers of Dispute Resolution Panel, definition of Dispute Resolution Panel, eligible assessee, etc. In terms of the schematic arrangement prescribed in Sec. 144C of the Act, firstly a „draft proposed

Strides Shasun Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1992/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT D.R

Section 143Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

Transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act"]: 1:1 The Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel grossly erred in making adjustment u/s. 92CA of the Act aggregating to Rs. 17,36,13,067/- with respect to imputing interest on share ... share application money paid the subsidiaries by the Appellant - Rs. 17,36,13,067/-: 2:1 The Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel have erred in imputing additional interest on the share application money paid to the subsidiaries by the Appellant. 2:2 The Appellant submits that considering

Ucb India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1081/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234B

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai- [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’] under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The Appellant has raised 28 grounds of appeal directed against

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) pursuant to the direction issued by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for AY. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the legal issue challenging the action of the AO to have reopened the original-scrutiny-assessment

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

Capital loan obtained - Rs. 21,75,000 The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3) (DCIT) pursuant to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel -II (DRP) erred in making the price adjustments of Rs. 21,75,000 for interest paid on working capital loan obtained from SCB-India

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-assessment Centre 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lat. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer CAO)/ 1d TPO in confirming the addition ... proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order on 07.12.2019. 4. The assesse has filed objections from the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the additions proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order. The ld. DRP issued directions vide order u/s 144C

Shreepal Humad, Indore vs. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 125/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263

payable by the appellant in accordance with such order; (D) in a case where objection filed by the appellant is pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Income-tax Act as on the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant if the Dispute ... Resolution Panel was to confirm the variation proposed in the draft order; (E) in a case where Dispute Resolution Panel has issued any direction under sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act Page 9 of 15 Shreepal Humad Page 10 of 15 and the Assessing Officer

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm.of Income Tax 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2422/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Greatship (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Ltd., C/O, Kalyaniwalla Of Income Tax -5(1)(1) Mistry Llp, Esplanade Room No. 568, Aayakar House, 29, Hazarimal Bhavan, M.K. Road, Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg8542K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Asif Karmali

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 928Section 92C

also proposed disallowance u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D to the amount of Rs.38,51,576/-. 3. The assessee has filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the addition disallowances proposed by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order. The Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions u/s 144C

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, Mumbai [ the ld DRP] dated 28.09.2018. 02. Assessee is aggrieved with Assessment order based on the direction of the ld DRP pursuant ... Star Sports India Pvt Limited , a non existing company, instead of in the name of Star India Private Limited. 08. The learned dispute resolution panel noted in its direction dated 28/9/2018 passed in the name of Star India Private Limited [ Amalgamated company] that:- i On 30th November, 2014 the assessee

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in directing the learned Assessing Officer (AO) to treat, and the learned AO erred in treating, the Network

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

Mumbai P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 Factiva limited Vs. DCIT (IT)-2(3)(1) (the Learned AO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP) erred in holding the sum of INR 6,08,88,436 as 'Royally under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income

Factiva Ltd. C/O. Price Waterhouse & Co. Lltp, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1504/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1504 & 1505/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Hirali Desai &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vi)

Ppg Coating India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2168/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ppg Coatings India Pvt. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-13(1)(1) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. (Now Merged With Ppg Asian Paints Pvt. Ltd.) The Centrium Phoenix Market City, Lbs, Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai- 400070. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4378K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala Revenue By: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 25.01.2017 Pursuant To Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)-02, Mumbai Passed 27.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Senior Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Which According To Him Is A Legal Issue & Which Need To Be Adjudicated First, Since If The Legal Issue Is Upheld Then, It Goes To The Root Of The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Have Passed The Final Assessment Order. The Legal Issue Raised By Assessee Reads As Under;-

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 25.01.2017 pursuant to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-02, Mumbai passed 27.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). 2. At the outset ... composite scheme of arrangement for merger and demerger. It is noted that even though, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) as well as the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has acknowledged the fact of merger order passed by the Hon’ble High Court (supra), and the existence of the new entity

Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle-1, Alwar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 87/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, since, the final assessment order was passed

Nec Technologies India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 6982/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Nec Technologies India P. Ltd., The Addl. Cit, Special Range-6, C.R (Formerly Knows As Nec India P Ltd.), Building, New Delhi 110002 101 To 116, 1St Floor, Splendor Forum, Vs. Plot No. 3, District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccn 3496 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Revenue For : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi Dated 21.05.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That The Order Passed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Ranged (Ld. Cit(A) Ao') Us 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) In The Name Of "Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), The Amalgamating Entity, Which Had Ceased To Exist In The Eyes Of Law, Is Beyond Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Barred By Limitation, Bad In Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed. 3. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Advances (I.E. Input Cenvat Credit) To The Tune Of Rs. 91,81,394/- Which The Appellant Was Constrained To Write Off During The Year Under Consideration As Per The Direction Of Service Tax Department;

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv

Section 144C(13)Section 274Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)

Date of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi dated 21.05.2019 for AY 2015-16. 2. The grounds of assessee are as follows:- 1. That the order passed

Aglient Technologies (International) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6727/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No. Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Pan :Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2015-16 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, did not press ground

Shabbir Rajabali Vakil, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 874/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Abhishek SamdaniFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

draft assessment order passed on 27.03.2022. 3. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel has dismissed the objection filed by the assesse vide direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 26.09.2022. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel

Johnson &Johnson P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT/ACIT/Jt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1740/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C

filed by the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU)-1, Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP) dated 30th December, 2015 and Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 is filed by assessee. ITA No.2779/Mum/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment ... total income of the assessee as per normal computation of ₹636,23,59,083/-. The assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions under Section 144C (5) of the Act, on 30th December, 2015. Based on these directions

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd.(Frmerly Known As Johnson & Johnson Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 3015/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C